My iPad 3, combined with an Apple wireless keyboard and a $29 Origami keyboard case/stand, is hands-down the best writing system I've ever had in a writing career of more than 50 years.
It's my library, music collection, movie theater, still and video camera, photo album and darkroom.
I play Indian musical instruments. A $15 app has replaced the $400 worth of tabla and tanpura machines I use when practicing. It's my guitar tuner. My videoconferencing system. My online bank. And so much more.
It hasn't totally replaced my laptop. But it has taken over many of its duties, making them easier and more portable, and made it possible to do a lot more. It has become an indispensable, productive addition to my creative toolbox.

Let us wait for the launch & see its virtues. We are now trying to gesticulate between apple and a pear. Both have their takers.Let it surface first & then we see if the SURFACE has the edge to slice the APPLE or slippery enough for the APPLE to sit on top of SURFACE

Microsoft has been following Apple for so many years, and seems to be doing well. The business model of producing something which is mediocre, then offering something a little better, allows many profitable iterations.

History has shown (especially in the tech sector) the first one to market rarely succeeds, it's the first one to do it right (MS-DOS for OS'es, iPod for music, iPhone for smartphones) that will come out ahead in the end. In my opinion it's still too early to tell whether the iPad is doing it right. A keyboard, a more developer friendly OS, and better interoperability might be game changers.
Also, if that's what you learned in your economics classes in school I'd get my money back.

What I learned in economics classes was many years ago. What I was repeating is the result of current research. And a knowledge of economics is better than none at all.

It is true that the first to create a market in a new product (which it often invents) often (but not always) is superseded by a latecomer which goes on to dominate that market.

But this is not invariably true. An example of an initiator which went on to dominate and hold the market it created is CocaCola.

But the reason for this later domination, which you would have learned in your economics classes if you had taken them, is not superior technology, but better marketing; which allowed this firm to seize an initial overwhelming market share, and then keep it.It is very difficult, indeed nearly impossible, for a company which holds a dominant position in a market to be upstaged by number two, even if by any criteria number two's product is superior.

A good example of this is Microsoft. Its technology is generally considered to be very inferior to Apple, but as it has managed to set a standard, and initially obtained a major market share, and because of perverse human psychology (seen in the reactions above) of creating an inbuilt loyalty and an unwillingnes to change, it has managed to say ahead in the desk top computer market.

Apple learnt that bitter lesson. They set out to create and grab their new markets, though they might not have invented these devices. They now have an unassailable lead. No amount of minor improvements by Microsoft, Samsung, etc. will take that market from them.

And modern economics has found the magic number to be 2 1/2. For Microsoft to beat Apple its products have to be 2 1/2 times as good, or the same and 2 1/2 times cheaper.

And yes, modern economics explains all these things. It is well worth the study. In fact if all companies and all countries, such as those in Europe, were run by economists, human welfare would be vastly improved. Economists are mathematical psychologists, not bean counters or technicians as non-economists think.

I was referring to the iPad only. I don't think it's unreasonable to say "it's too early to tell" for a barely 2 year old product that has had no real competitors until now. Please see the decline of Apple in the PC market after the Apple II.

With over 14 million units moved in 2011, any MBA student would call event two-year old market mature. I'd argue (as an Apple developer since, well, the IIe) that the market for personal computing, and Apple's share of it (in adjusted dollars, units moved, market share), has shown demonstratable growth since the Apple II, some thirty odd years ago. Pretty mature there, too. As iOS is at its heart OSX (which is NeXTStep/BSD unix at its core), the market for that platform is pretty darn mature. The Newton ushered in tablets way back in the early 90s. This IS the maturation of the platform, if one chooses to look at tablets as separate from the personal computing world. I'd say the next big leap is the widespread adoption of cloud computing, which an always-connected device like a tablet enables.

I'm not talking about their current sales or how "mature" their OS is when I say it's too early to tell, I'm talking about the basis of Apple's business model, which is bundling hardware and software and locking down the entire platform.

That didn't work out for them in the PC market, why would you assume it would work with tablets, or phones for that matter? (I don't know what you're referring to when you talk about Apple's growth in the PC market, with their current 5-10% market share.)

Yes I admit, I'm thinking longer term than you. But do you want to bet that the iPad will still be the market leader in tablets in a few years, or fall behind to a more open platform like Android or Windows? (It's already happened to them with phones.)

Apple has always had a "walled garden" approach, so I'd argue that the business model is pretty well established (after all, the company has been around for 30+ years). I refer you to the current struggle by Google to get the various flavors of Android under control. Too many cooks, etc.

Dominance of the PC market is not the only measure of success, as I assume you are alluding to, regarding Apple's 5-10% market share. I am sayings, in terms of numbers of units sold annually, in terms of revenue, in terms of whatever, Apple's 5-10% share is of a substantially large market. A total market that is larger than it was in the 80s, 90s, 00s.

I'm not betting that the iPad or some other product will be the market leader in a few years. Who cares? I may well be dead. I am happy that my company has had Objective C expertise, and was in the right spot at the right time as far as iOS applications go. Our cloud expertise helps, of course, but that's a result of our conviction that NeXT, er, Apple's WebObjects technology would be durable as a leading edge web app solution. There's plenty of room for lots of platforms.

My advice -- don't try to predict the future. Many an "Oracle" has been burned by that strategy. I think you'd agree, the trend is for smaller, always-connected Internet devices (tablet, netbook, phone).

Personally, I've felt the "Human Interface Guidelines" aspect of Apple's walled garden is smart, from an end user perspective. I've also always preferred a high quality platform (think BMW vs Ford). I understand others may only go with initial cost as the driver for buying decisions. But not thinking total cost of ownership (including end user support) is short-sighted, IMHO.

Your last paragraph I think is what it comes down to and sums up our differences in thinking. Apple's products will never service anything more than the higher-end, niche market segment, while someone else will take care of the masses, IMHO. I disagree on the TCO part, however. Not everyone needs (or wants) a BMW.

For the first time, in the last 10 years, I really do want Microsoft to succeed; and to really succeed in the tablet productivity niche market. Apple has suddenly transformed into a monopoly. And while I do fully support the prevailing legal and economic model behind profiting from one's intellectual property, I do think that the real physical difference between an Amazon's Kindle Fire and an Apple's iPad is not reflected in the price differential between the two products. Apple's iPad is too expensive. We need a company like Microsoft to get into the game; for the overall benefits of consumers.

Let us hope we really get a tablet,which at least does not hang or gets locked!It is true that Microsoft has made PC an indispensable device in modern times.While I as an individual do not see movies or like to play video games as I do not find interest in them, yet I can read all newspapaers around the world, get news, communicate through e mail, do financial transactions including purchase of daily groceries including payment etc.It is a real help and support in this modern era.Of course the only irritants are virus attack or computer hanging due to reasons unknown to me!

Microsoft is macrosoft on newness.It always thinks " better late than never" and comes up with modified innovations to make a statement "I am in competition too".
In a market with such fierce and aggressive run to push products,it might be hard to surface from the bottom.Of course,if Windows 8 has incredible features that sweeps others under the carpet there might be some initial euphoria. It is sad that a giant like Microsoft while managing to hold on to its core competence despite litigation and violation fines,has not focused on what catches the imagination of the end user and particularly the young and mobile sort.
It is a great company in its own way, but trying to be everywhere needs much more than trying to surprise the market with a product that has little innovation like the cover becoming the keyboard.

People seem to be missing the strategic aspects. With the release of Windows 8 on the PC, the introduction of WP8 for phones, the introduction of Surface/tablet and the rumours about Xbox 720 next year Microsoft will have a single software platform, WinRT, that spans phones, tablets, TVs and PCs. It includes a new user interface, Metro, that works well for touch and distance (i.e. TV) and replaces the tired icon per application paradigm. It runs equally well and can even be application-compatible across ARM and x86/x64. By comparison Apple has two different OSs for the two CPU families. Since WinRT can be independent of classic Windows it can run on light-weight hardware, possibly allowing WP8 phones to be cheaper than iPhones and price-competitive with Android phones. If Microsoft can pull this off they will have performed a significant reinvention and could become a major player in the consumer space.

On a related note I was interested to see that Microsoft has buckled under and allowed the SIM to be used as a secure element in WP8. This will allow the mobile network operators a foothold into mobile payments using specifications that have been in place for years. They will love Windows Phone for this. Apple and Google/Android have been trying to control this space and keep the MNOs out by not including the necessary hooks in their software. How soon before they have to follow suit?

In re: "By comparison Apple has two different OSs for the two CPU families."

The iOS and OS X operating systems are, under the hood, virtually identical, based on the core BSD / Unix stuff from NeXT. The portability/flexibility of this architecture is reflected in the wide variety of chipsets the operating system runs on.

This could be exactly what I have been looking for to occupy the space between my iPhone and my clunky windows/work laptop. I could never quite justify an iPad because it didn't offer enough utility over my iPhone. Now, for just $600, I can travel to a client and leave the clunky dell laptop at the office. With the Surface I can use my iPhone as a wireless hotspot, I have a usb port and expandable memory, access to the MS Office suite, and the convenience of a keyboard (though the jury is still out on how well it will work). If I need to run more powerful applications or enterprise software I can just VPN into my work laptop sitting in the office.

Those who say you should just buy an ultrabook or macbook air are missing the point. I want to be able to have my cake and eat it too (touch screen/media consumption convenience and business utility and input/keyboard functionality). I think there have to be a lot of people out there like me who have been waiting for a product to hit that sweet spot. If Microsoft can execute, I will certainly be picking up a Surface.

Microsoft does need to produce a tablet for if nothing else, proof of concept. However they lust after the hardware piece of the profit action, as well as the need to be in the game, they would have to make the big leap that Mr. Jobs made, when iPod turned the company around... and that is it is not a Microsoft world anymore. The standard in mobile today is owned by another, and by that I mean no matter how good Windows 8 may be, the apps are another story, and Windows 8 is not the standard, and most likely will never be.

There is an important lesson to be learned from Apple and that is to be competitive you have to control both the software and the hardware. You could have a great OS, if the computers suck then everyone is going to associate your OS will low quality. I think Microsoft realized that the days of outsourcing production are over.

Except that they are getting into the hardware business for that precise reason. Letting someone else build the hardware is letting someone else dictate how your product gets used. Companies realize that they cannot take that risk anymore.

Anyone trying to use a tablet for volume typing hasn't figured out what the device is for. Its tarded. And agian, so what? In two months there will be some other after market comany selling that keyboard.

And because I'm posting from an iPad, do you really think I am not aware of the issues? Please.

So the iPad has 200,000 Apps; how many of them are actually unique and/or useful?

I think that the big selling point for the Surface Pro is that it has, apparently, got a full copy of Windows so can be made secure for corporate applications and a USB port for security keys as well as other useful devices.

Apple may keep the toy market, but this should clean up for business use.

The iPad is a toy. Know anyone that actually uses their for an important work function? Neither do I. The closest I have seen someone come using there's for work was a calendar, a $400+ calendar that is. Everyone else that I have seen use one uses it as a toy. Yes, I am told that you can do anything with it because it has so many aps. So? No actually uses for any of those useful purposes.

Microsoft will have an instant market if the ply this thing as having an actual legit business function.

The iPad is a content consumption device. The PC is a content creation *and* consumption device. For all the applications where consumption is more important than creation - reading magazines/papers, reviewing documents, reading emails, viewing videos, surfing the net - the PC is an overkill device.

As for the lack of business functions of a tablet, I suggest strolling in hospitals a bit.

And of course, a comparative review of the financial statements of Apple vs, say, Microsoft, Dell and HP is always instructive.

Such ignorance. I do my work on my iPad. I sat next to a guy yesterday who was using it with his company's CRM to do follow-ups on sales calls. I could recite many similar examples from all sorts of fields.

I've seen folks use it for several business purposes. Taking notes, managing appointments, and working with web based enterprise applications.

The iPad has real limitations, but those limitations don't mean it can't be used for business. The iPad is fundamentally a single user content consumption device and the Appli policies around app development/deployment further limit it to public content.

Where a business plan calls for a proprietary application that must function while not connected to the internet the iPad just won't work. On the other hand, that sort of business plan is getting less common. As companies move to cloud based solutions those limits become less relevant.

Yes, as a reader for technical information that skips the bulk of a keyboard and the ergonomic restrictions of a laptop or as an electronic clipboard for one function or another, such as for sales etc.

No, I don't own one but yes I have used one. Zouf puts it best - its a device for consumption, even more so when you consider that apple is channeling every function of the Ipad and the internet into a separate ap that apple gets a cut of. you're doing the consuming and apple is getting the money.

As for all you business folks lauding the iPad I suspect that some of you have discovered a godsend and the rest of you are just being trendy - there I said it.

Yes, but most clipboards can't instantly transmit data back to the office. That feature is probably the only thing that can justify the expense.
So the iPad mostly a device for information dissemination, but I think the value in business applications can be seen in an Apple store itself as
1) A product brochure for products on sale (given Apple's markups probably still cost effective and part of the 'cool' sheen they apply to themselves).*
2) A replacement for the register -- allowing staff to discuss product and make sale, and avoiding lines. Now wouldn't it be cool if as you were dropping items into your shopping cart, it added them up and as you approached the door, you could make payment?
*How many brochures can tell the businesses what people look at about their products or potentially pimp something else?